'All are equal, but some are more equal than others"Follow

Didn't you learn to steer clear of car accident analogies after the time you compared car accidents to capital punishment?

Well, while I haven't been as diligent as I'd like, I was referring to "Liberal" as the political affiliation, not necessary the dictionary definition. Part of my whole point is that the agendas and actions of "Liberal" parties today are *not* the same as the definitions that people have for "liberal". Hence, why some will say that it's impossible to have a liberal dictator (see example of this above).


The problem is that we're dealing with common definitions for things (which are broad and typically not very accurate) being conflated with some very specific actions. Everyone will throw around words like liberal and conservative, but depending on context, could mean any of a number of different things. Here in the US, we say that the Democrats are liberal and the Republicans are conservative. Thus, we may be talking about an ideology, or a political party, or even a way of approaching things when we use those terms.


There's a reason I originaly used the term "socialist" rather then simply "liberal". Note, however that most people will equate socialism with the left, and the left with being "liberal". Interesting, isn't it? And I certainly used the term liberal interchangably on a couple of occasions as well. However, I think it's clear that I'm *not* talking about someone who believes in free expression and equality and all of that stuff in the definition. I'm talking about the political aspect of the word.


It's pretty disengenous to take a word that has multiple meanings and respond to someone who has be abundantly clear which meaning he's using and argue against him by using a different one. If you want to use the Oxford definition of liberal, then go right ahead. But that's not what I'm talking about. And it's *also* not what most people are talking about politically when they talk about the Democrats being "liberal" either (ok, some people may think that's what the Dems are about, but I think their voting history shows that to be false).


If you want a more precise word, I'll give you one I've used in the past (but to which there is also confusion as to the meaning): Social Liberalism. Look it up. It is essentially the outgrowth of socialism that specifically believes in empowering the government to "fix" percieved inequities within a society. It is very much an authoritarian agenda (has to be since it's increasing the governments power over the people). It is *also* very much what Hitler used to gain power. It is what Chavez has used to gain power. And it's essentially the foundation of the Democrat party platform.


So excuse me if I sometimes use the more common word "liberal" to apply to what the Democrat side of the political fence (and equate that to other's with similar methodologies). I'll be more clear, but most people will not know what I'm talking about, and when I do explain it, they'll go "Oh. You mean a liberal" and I'll kinda smack my hand to my forehead and grimace yet again...

Gbaji, you are such an idiot. Every single person that has taken power anywhere in the world in the last 100 years has done on that premise.

It's crazy because surely you have, somewhere, the capacity to not be a complete tool. And yet you still *choose* to be as mind-numbingly stupid as lemon-powered-spaghetti-rocket.

You can't *really* believe what you write. It *must* be propagandha. Or maybe you're a sock. I don't know.

But trying to argue that somehow Hitler and liberals have anything in common, or that governments that promise to fix problems in society are somehow to blame for totalitarist government, is just too stupid to argue against.

Good, because I was beggining to wonder what the hell was the point of this discussion...

So let me get this right.

You're saying:

a) Leftist governments generally try to fix problems in society.
b) Totalitarian governments increase the power of the state in order to impose order and their authority.

c) Therefore, leftists governments are extremely dangerous.

It's a fascinating subject for someone who is mentally retarded. For anyone else, though it's completely stupid.

It's like saying "right wing governments try to impose law and order" "totalitarian governments are big on law and order", therefore "law and order is very dangerous".

It's as far removed from "logic" as we can get, to be honest.

But carry on, there are plenty more ways to demonise the left, I'm sure. Have you tried Satan? Aliens? Cancer?

We actually treat them worse, have you seen the **** that goes on in prison that our guards turn a blind eye to?

Not just the hardcore criminals either, you can get arrested in New Orleans for a traffic ticket and have the key thrown away. But I guess terrorists have more of a right to humane conditions in a prison than someone who just forgot to pay a parking ticket. Right, man?

Reagan didn't claim that his policies would benefit the lower class?

Huh.

Thank God for the thin red line of conservatives like Gbaji who keep the Scandinavian nations and their neighbors from blooming into blood-thirsty totalitarian regimes.

Thank you, Gbaji. Due solely to your eternal vigilance and unceasing work, we need not fear the terrors of an unleashed King Harald V.

Edited, Jun 13th 2007 6:26pm by Jophiel

You'll be whistling a different tune when Gbaji stops and Queen Beatrix comes to your house to kick your ***, pinko.

You're welcome Joph!

You'll thank me even more when the EU nations start to collapse economically under the weight of their own social programs and devolve into rioting and harsh dictatorship. You'll think to yourself: "Self. I'm sure glad that folks like gbaji fought dilligently to prevent us from becoming like them". You'll see! ;)

...

This is the most non-sensical thing I've heard in a long time. Leftist political movments don't *do* anything. Some individuals vote for a government, sure. Is that your problem? That people vote?

Or are you really saying that because people expect their democratically elected government to do *something*, then it's a SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!! towards dictatorships?



Yeah, great premise for a reasonable debate. I can totally see the point of arguing with someone as open-minded as that.




Well of course!

Like Hitler, AMIRITE?!





Yeah gbaji, sure.

People like you are *obviously* the reason why leftists governments don't turn into *****.

I'm glad to see that everything is going dandy in that crazy little head of yours.

Hugo Chavez arose to power as a result of a leftist political movement.

And thus, the argument comes full circle. Game. Set. Match.


Unless you want to argue that what Chavez has done since taking office is anything less then establishing an authoritarian regime?

How to build a dictatorship in a South American Country:
1) Nationalize the economy's primary industry. Check
2) Censor the opposition. Check
3) Build a big military using the windfall from step one, so nobody can overthrow you when they learn what you are really up to:




Edited, Jun 15th 2007 3:13pm by fhrugby

Edited, Jun 15th 2007 3:15pm by fhrugby

Nine submarines is a big military? That only puts them at about 60-65 submarines behind the United States. I'm too lazy to look for a breakdown of types, but the US has over 11,000 aircraft between the USAF and the Navy. Not counting those the other branches have.

Not that I'm championing Chavez here but let's not pretend that this turns Venesuela into a military giant.